Bangladesh University of Professionals

Assignment
Discuss the Problems of Applying Judicial ADR & Quasi Formal
ADR in Bangladesh with Possible Solution
Course Name: Alternative Dispute Resolution & Legal Aid
Course Code: Law-3605

Submitted To
Musferat MazrunChowdhury
Lecturer, Department of Law
Faculty of Security & Strategic Studies (FSSS)
Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)

Submitted By
GROUP-5
Tanjina Islam- ID 18421111
Mahmuda Akter Swarna- ID 18421003
Jannat Ara- ID 18421103
Noverujjaman Shopon- ID 18421029
Nafisa Rumaly Rahman Anika- ID 18421063
6th Semester
Department of Law
FSSS, BUP

S u b m i tt e d O n : 5 t h O c t o b e r , 2 0 2 0
 Discuss the Problems of Applying Judicial ADR & Quasi Formal ADR in

Bangladesh with Possible Solution

Abstract

In recent years in Bangladesh there has been renewed emphasis on the Alternative Dispute

Resolution schemes as a means to avoid the use of contested hearings in the formal litigation and

to ensure the most fundamental right of access to justice for all in an easy way. These Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR) modalities are considered as less likely to fuel the parental conflicts,

more likely to induce the parties to resolve their conflicts in an amicable manner preserving the

future relationship between the parties and reducing cost, delay and loss of energy to a

significant extent. Following the considerable advantages of ADR almost every county of the

world has introduced ADR system in its justice delivery system which has paved the way to the

promotion of access to justice indiscriminately for all. This paper is an attempt to provide a

comprehensive idea about obstacles in the way of access to justice in our legal system and by

analyzing the different mechanisms of ADR and court and non-court based practices of those

modalities under different legislations of Bangladesh, to show the fairness, efficiency and

effectiveness of ADR towards the promotion of access to justice and to provide some

recommendations for the complete success of ADR towards the effective, non-discriminative,

speedy and easy access to justice for all either rich or poor, literate or illiterate, male or female

and elite or lower class.

Introduction
In any state, access to justice is considered a most coveted aspiration and is regarded as vital

component of human rights because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Every

man born with some human rights, some of them have been guaranteed in the chapter of

fundamental rights in the constitutions of the most of the countries of the world. Bangladesh

constitution guarantees to every citizen equality before law and ensures the right to enjoy the

protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law. These rights have also been

guaranteed in different international and regional documents .The Universal Declaration of

Human Rights 1948 says everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms which have been set

forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex etc. The African

Charter on Human and Peoples Rights provides that every individual shall be equal in the eye of

law.3 The responsibility to ensure these rights and to deliver justice to the common people has

been vested on the legal institutions including courts. But due to some reasons, access to justice

to the vast majority of people has become a hollow promise guaranteed under the constitution.

The reasons are inordinate delay, repetition, backlogging of cases, high cost, complex procedural

rules, limited opportunity or incentives for consensual settlements etc. Our legal system

theoretically ensures access to justice for each and every citizen of the country but in practice the

door of justice is not open for disadvantaged segment of the society. In most of the cases access

to justice is only available to the resourceful person and powerful elite since in order to have

access to justice one must have the means which includes money. This scenario is common in

civil justice delivery system where the parties fight in a „do or die‟ manner with no or little

prospect of any consensual settlement. So we have the only choice the “Alternative Dispute

Resolution” which can easily and quickly ensure access to justice. At present ADR is seen by

many as an important part of the countries‟ judicial framework, particularly in so far as the civil
justice delivery system is concerned. ADR is a range of processes which without following

adversarial and formal judicial process assists the disputants to solve their dispute in amicable

way with harmony. Ex Chief justice Mustafa Kamal described ADR as “a non -formal settlement

of legal and judicial disputes as a means of disposing of cases quickly and inexpensively” The

European Commission, in its green paper on ADR stated:

ADRs offer a solution to a problem of access to justice faced by the citizens in many countries

due to three factors: the volume of disputes brought before the court is increasing, the

proceedings are becoming more lengthy and costs incurred by such proceedings are increasing.

And quantity, complexity and technical obscurity of litigation also help make access to justice

more difficult. As ADR is voluntary and consensual system it helps the parties to tell their own

story and give the parties opportunities to participate fully in the process.

Efficiency and effectiveness of ADR towards Access to Justice

Development of ADR in different countries of the world, especially in developing countries is a

step towards the proper administration of civil justice for all equally. It has successfully opened

the door of justice equally for rich and poor which the ordinary legal system has failed to do.

Through ADR the parties can reach to a harmonious settlement of the dispute which is opposed

to the win-lose outcome of the legalistic and formalistic approach of litigation. Usually the win

lose situation becomes a rigorous obstacle in the way of future relationship between the parties.

As it sequels win-win situation which not only settles the dispute but also brings peace and

healing that preserve the future relationship between the parties. Avoiding all kinds of legal

procedural complexities, technical legal principles it follows the process which the parties and

their appointed mediator think best for the settlement of their issue. In ADR the parties select and

control the process of it for smooth, correct, effective and efficacious remedy and they are under
the liberty to appoint any expert in the subject matter of the dispute. Through ADR, avoiding

formal process of the court, it is not impossible to settle more than one suit in a single sitting

which not only saves the time and energy of the litigants but reduces the cost to a significant

extent. Apart from ensuring these benefits it can provide social and psychological benefits to the

parties. So a vast number of disputes are settled through ADR which enormously reduces the

tremendous pressure on the current suits in the ordinary courts. One important positive side of

ADR is absolute maintaining of privacy because privacy is a key value which underpins human

dignity and it is a basic human right and the reasonable expectation of every person. Once a

mediation settlement is reached and a decree is passed the case is finally disposed of. Unlike a

trial there is no possibility of a dispute, settled through mediation, being revived. Another

important advantage of ADR is the liberty of the parties to withdraw the suit at any time, in any

stage of the suit, from the formal court and to send for the settlement through ADR and the

resolution through formal ADR bears the strength of a judicial decree that is expected to

contribute greatly towards the level of confidence and popularity of the mechanism amongst

litigants. The informality of ADR and NGO promoted dispute resolution initiatives, particularly

mediation, paved the way for the marginalized men and women and grassroots members of the

community to participate in local adjudication.16 For these advantages of ADR, judicial

mediation and arbitration have been introduced in many parts of the world and in many

legislations of Bangladesh. Most of the family court cases in Bangladesh involve financial

claims. Statistics show that the total realization of money through execution of decree in suits

disposed of by trial is far below than the total realization of money in dispute settled through

mediation. From 1985 to 2000 total money realized in connection with family suits in three

courts is Tk.61, 99,759/50 whereas the total realization through mediation since the introduction
of mediation in the same courts from June 2000 up to 16th May 2001 i.e. in twelve months is

Tk.50, 94,501/00

Different types of ADR in legal framework of Bangladesh:

ADR is a means of resolving dispute which is an alternative to going to the court. It may be any

one of the two forms either determinative or elective, all mechanisms of ADR fall within these

two forms.

Determinative ADR is any non court process which will determine the outcome of the dispute. It

involves a third party, whether an arbitrator or an adjudicator or an expert acting as a

determinative capacity. Elective ADR is that which facilitates discussion, which usually turns

into negotiations which does not produce any judgment or finding which is binding on the

parties. The various modalities of ADR, Conciliation, Mediation, Settlement Conference,

Arbitration, Minitrial, Negotiation, Appellate ADR, Village court, Board of Conciliation and

Traditional Salish which are practiced in Bangladesh can be classified under the following three

categories –

1. Formal/judicial ADR

2. Quasi-formal/statutory ADR

3. Informal /Non-formal ADR

Notions of Judicial ADR

ADR may either freestanding or Court based. In other words, ADR may be tied to a law suit or

freestanding. When the process is connected to the law suit or court case, it is called court based

ADR or judicial ADR. The freestanding ADR has no relationship with court cases. When
disputants sit for amicable settlement by conciliation on their own, or approach a middle man or

neutral third person to negotiate or mediate their dispute that is called freestanding ADR. The

commercial arbitration and local or community based ADR are the common examples of

freestanding ADR . The court based ADR refers to a process where both parties meet with an

arbitrator or mediator, under the direction of the competent court, who will help the parties to

focus on their situation and consider the appropriate options for settlement available to them in

their suits. The court based ADR programs or practices are authorized and used within the court

system and their procedures are controlled by the court . The court schedules dates and times for

the ADR process and assures the administration of each case referred to ADR, including

monitoring and evaluation. The court assures ownership of all aspects of the ADR process,

including accommodation within the court and the selection of the neutral. However, that might

be narrow description of court based ADR. In wider sense, the court based ADR includes the

ADR process referred by the courts. An agreement arising out of the court based program is

enforceable as a court order. Generally, after filling a court case a judge or court employee

examines the dispute and suggests or orders, as a matter of course, the parties to attempt to

resolve their differences through ADR in forms of mediation, conciliation, negotiation or mini-

trial etc. In every approach the judge himself or a neutral third person tries to get the disputants

to reach an amicable settlement. If they do, the case is dismissed, saving the time and expenses

of litigation. The Court Based ADR is a not a recent phenomenon. Among the different modes

of ADR, the court referred arbitration methods was the earliest form of formal ADR in this

subcontinent. Thus, the alternative dispute resolution started in this arena in institutionalized

form was through reference made by the court to the arbitrator. Whether taking the assistance of

ADR system is obligatory or optional essentially depends on the rules of procedure of the court.
Where the participation in ADR is required by the court, whether by an individual judge's order

or by a court rule that certain types of proceedings will go to ADR, the referral is presumptively

mandatory. On the other hand, if ADR use is based wholly on the consent of the parties, the

referral is voluntary.

Nexus between ADR and Judiciary

Currently it has been the policy of the governments around the world that disputes should be

resolved at a proportionate level, and that the courts should be the last resort of dispute

resolution. Although ADR is independent of the court system, a judge can recommend that

parties involved in litigation enter into it. The court may also impose cost sanctions if it decides

that one or more of the parties has been unreasonable in refusing to attempt ADR.If parties

refuse an offer to mediate without good reason, then even if they win their case, the judge can

refuse to award them some or all of their legal costs. However, there are disagreements with the

notion of refusal to award legal costs. It is thought that blanket invitations to mediate,

particularly with an implicit threat of penalties for refusal, may not be the most effective

approach to the encouragement of ADR at appellate level .

Judicial ADR in Bangladesh

Though the journey of court based ADR in the then Indian subcontinent started with the

promulgation of Bengal Regulation of 1772,5 which for the first time statutorily recognized the

import and significance of ADR in resolving disputes as part of the court process , the Court

Based ADR reached its sophistication in the later part of the twentieth century, specifically in the

1980s with the promulgation of the Family Court Ordinance, 1985. Later on, witnessing the

tremendous success of the family court in resolving disputes as specified in section 5, the
legislature felt the impetus for incorporating ADR provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure in

2003. Thereafter, the ADR provisions were incorporated into the Artha Rin Adalat Ain (Money

Loan Court Act), 2003 (as amended in 2010), the Labour Act, 2006, the Income Tax Ordinance,

1984 (as amended in 2011) and some other laws relating to taxation and labor.

Judicial ADR in Family matters

The Family Courts Ordinance, 1985 was promulgated with a view to expedite the resolution of

cases related to family affairs rapidly and effectively. These courts have been following the ADR

procedure in disposing the cases both before and after the conclusion of trial. The family court

shall fix a date for pre-trial hearing within 30 (thirty) days after the filing of the written statement

by the defendant. Under sec. 10(3) of the Ordinance 1985 the court generally, in the pre-trial

hearing, ascertains the issues between the parties and attempt to affect a compromise or

reconciliation between the parties. The Family Court, if it deems fit or on the application of any

disputants, may conduct the whole or part of the trial in camera. The Court can take steps to

compromise or conciliate between the parties even after the closing of evidence and before

pronouncing final judgment . Where the dispute is settled through compromise or reconciliation

between the parties, the Court shall execute the decree or give decision on the basis of that

compromise or reconciliation.

Judicial ADR in Civil matters

Following the unprecedented success of the Family Court in resolving family disputes through

ADR machinery, the legislature felt encouraged to incorporate ADR mechanisms into the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The ADR methods come into the civil matters in broader way

by the amendment of Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2003. The amended Act of 2003
introduces the court based mediation and arbitration as integral part of the civil proceedings in

Bangladesh. However, it was the discretionary power of the court to explore the scope of

mediation. Later on, the CPC was amended again in 2012 that made the mediation system

mandatory in all sort of civil proceedings. The Act went through another amendment in 2006 that

introduced the provision of mediation even at the appellate stage.

Achievements of Court Based ADR

In Family Courts

The Family Court Ordinance was promulgated in 1985. In this Ordinance the provision of

mediation, an ADR process been incorporated in section 10, 11 and 13 giving the court ample

scope to mediate the disputes among the parties. But the courts did not practice these provisions

widely until the year 2000. A total sixteen pilot courts were undertaken in between 2000 to 2001

in different districts of the country. Trained judges were posted there. Those pilot courts

achieved immense success in disposing of the family cases through mediation. A statistics shows

that the pilot courts disposed 2418 family cases (about 35% of total pending family cases) and

realized Tk. 74.47 million through mediation in three years (from July, 2001 to June, 2004) after

their establishment [8]. Whereas, before these initiatives from 1985 to 2000, in fifteen years, the

total amount of money realized through some 70 Family Courts were about Tk. 6.2 million and

those courts disposed less than one thousand family cases through mediation.

In Civil and Money Loan Courts

The success in the Family Court encouraged the parliament to enact a provision of ADR for the

civil courts. Finally the provision of ADR was incorporated into the Code of Civil Procedure in
July, 2003. In order to observe the working of the civil courts, quarterly statements of disposal of

suits in the civil courts for three years starting from 2012 to 2014 have been collected from the

administrative officers of four district courts. The above Table shows a clear picture of how the

ADR provisions in the selected districts have been working in the last three years. The figure of

disposal of civil suits through ADR is quite shocking. The total number of disposal of suits in the

four selected districts in last three years was 31432, out of which only 697 suits were disposed of

through ADR. The percentage of disposal through ADR is only 2.22% of the total number of

disposal. The official statistics demonstrate that ADR is not working satisfactorily which needs

immediate intervention by way of overhauling the entire ADR regime.

Challenges of Judicial ADR in Bangladesh

As is evident from the preceding discussions, more than a decade has been elapsed since the

incorporation of ADR provisions into the civil law of the country. However, Bangladesh still

could not manage to institutionalize and make the ADR tools truly functional. The high

expectation of success of ADR tools in curbing case backlog and providing quick but

inexpensive remedy avoiding procedural complexity and formality in the civil, Artha Rin

(Money Loan) and to some extent in the family cases has met with failure . Some problems and

challenges faced by the legislations related to court based and quasi formal ADR are discussed

hereunder:

Challenges in Family matters

stage like the CPC. Further, like the CPC there is no provision for the substitution of judge in

case of failure of judge sponsored ADR under the FCO .

 It was envisaged in the FCO to form and establish separate Family Courts to deal exclusively

with family disputes. Nonetheless, with utter surprise that no separate Family Courts have been

established yet, rather the court of Assistant Judge has been working as the Family Court Judge

who is already overburdened with other civil suits.

 Family disputes are very sensitive and personal in nature that requires a judge who is

experienced and well trained. But under section 4 of the FCO the court of Assistant Judge, the

lowest tier of the subordinate judiciary who is most inexperienced, acts as the Judge of the

Family Court. But in India the Family Courts Act, 1984 requires that a person shall not be

qualified for appointment as a judge unless s/he has held a judicial office at least for seven years.

 Currently, only the Family Court Judges are responsible for effecting compromise and no

provision relating to referring a dispute to a person or institute outside of court is present in the

FCO.

 In the FCO there is no counseling support service in a district which is extremely necessary

for providing assistance to the parties in resolving family disputes.

Challenges in Civil and Money Loan matters

 In the CPC there is no general or specific guideline for the mediators regarding the

maintenance of equal participation and opportunity for the parties that may create serious
problem in case of power imbalance. There is also no explicit provision pertaining to reviewing

the agreement arrived at upon conclusion of mediation under the CPC .

 Further, the CPC incorporates mediation provisions at the pre-trial and the appellate stage but

mediation mechanism upon conclusion of the trial before the pronouncement of judgment has

not been incorporated into the CPC. It is an established fact that the parties usually are aware of

the merits of their case just upon conclusion of the trial. Therefore, post-trial mediation may

prove to be more effective than that of the mediation at the appellate stage.

 Section 89A as it stands after the amendment in 2012 requires the court to refer the suit for

compulsory mediation. If either or both the parties and their lawyers remain absent, the court has

no option but to postpone the stage to another date. Again, when the parties are in attendance and

the court has referred the suit to the parties for mediation, but the parties or any of them does not

appear before mediator, then the mediation is bound to fail. In this backdrop, the section does not

empower the court with the tools to enforce the attendance of the parties. Thus, the present

provision adds to the existing practice of delay.

 Quite often it happens that after the suit has been referred to mediation any of the party does

not want to compromise and withdraws from mediation without assigning any reason in which

case a mediator has no other option but to report the court about the failure of the mediation.

Under section 89A there is no penal provision for the party who unreasonably withdraws from

mediation.

 It is often alleged that lawyers discourage their clients for resolving their disputes through

ADR in fear of reduction of their income level.

Although state mandated local justice systems are headed and operated by personnel in local

governance, have backing of the Government and have necessary structures and functionaries in

place, these systems are virtually redundant. The fact that the Union Parishad personnel have,

over the years, been far more occupied with making personal gain rather than dispensing justice

has made their offices practically defunct as far as resolution of conflicts at the local level are

concerned. This is also evident from the fact that disputes brought before the Conciliation Board

or the Village Court are often refixed to the NGO assisted ADR committees for resolution. The

alleged preoccupation of the local government organs with issues other than dispute resolution

has gradually deviated their focus from justice dispensation to other areas of service.

Consequently, the local population sees these bodies less as a forum for justice and more as a

development oriented service provider. Therefore, local government bodies are fast losing their

credibility in providing justice to local communities despite having clear sanctions of the law.

Moreover, the fact that justice delivery mechanisms of the quasi formal system are clearly

distinct from that used in community mediation both in terms of quality and effectiveness make

informal mediation more acceptable to local people. The inherent distinction between justice

dispensed through NGO mediation and that by the Village Court is that the proceedings in the

latter are premised on the arbitration model. In other words, while in mediation parties

themselves arrive at a solution with the assistance of the mediator who simply facilitates the

process, decisions at the Village Court evolve by way of arbitration based on the opinion of the

majority members. Compensation is awarded by the Village Court on the basis of the value of

the suit whereas, in mediation compensation is agreed upon by both parties. While there is no
scope for appeal under The Village Courts Ordinance 1976, mediation offers the disputants the

opportunity to reopen their cases and reapply for mediation where the first attempt fails. Finally,

although the Ordinance is silent about the sex of the members of the Village Court, the

participation of women as members of the Village Court is rare. Contrarily, women are

increasingly officiating as mediators on ADR committees.

Possible Solutions towards an effective ADR system:

No doubt, ADR is efficient and effective towards the promotion of access to justice, yet there are

some weaknesses which are the impediments to the effective ADR system which are (i) lack of

knowledge and awareness among the people; (ii) inadequate roles played by the legal

professionals;(iii) absence of appropriate and institutional framework; (iv) absence of trained

lawyers and judges regarding mediation;(v) negative impression among the lawyers regarding

ADR; (vi) non-application of ADR in old cases under section 89A;(vii) mediation and arbitration

are optional under C.P.C;(viii) in criminal cases non-inclusion of certain petty offences in the

compounding provisions of the Cr.P.C;(ix) want of separate ADR legislation;(x) deep-rooted

faith and mind sets in the traditional systems; and (xi) the community based ADR mechanism is

weakened by endemic corruption, partisan, conflicting local politics, illiteracy etc. These

impediments can be removed by the implementation of the following recommendations which

will enhance the access to justice through the effective ADR mechanisms:

1. Various actors like the GOB ministries, the NGOs, the local government bodies, the media

and other civil society can play an important role in promoting awareness, popularity and

effectiveness of the ADR mechanism in Bangladesh.

the ADR.

3. For the performance of the activities of ADR a separate institutional framework should be

developed and equipped with proper decorations.

4. Separate skilled and trained mediators should be appointed only for performing mediations.

5. Separate code can be enacted for the successful ADR in Bangladesh.

6. Establishment of separate mediation courts, for both civil and criminal matters, with

jurisdictions is essential for the success of ADR.

7. Family Court Model of Pre-trial hearing should be inserted in all civil suits.

8. The limitation imposed by section 23 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 must be

removed.

9. To acquire success through ADR the attitude of lawyers and judges must be changed.

10. Legal aid must be given to the poor litigants. For this purpose the Aingoto Sohayota Prodan

Ain 2000 must be amended.

11. Establishment of a statutory body entrusted with the responsibilities of policy formulating,

planning, promoting and monitoring the overall ADR system of the country.

12. Considering the nature of the dispute the fee of the mediators, arbitrators and conciliator

should be determined by the statute.

13. It is bare necessary to review sec. 345 of Cr.P.C1898 and the list of compounding offences

must be enlarged.
14. In criminal cases ADR is applied only in some C.R cases, so provisions should be made so

that the G.R cases can also be resolved through ADR.

15. The mediation courts should be established in every Upazila/ Thana.

Conclusion

Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms are believed to be a consensual approach to the

settlement of dispute not following the intractable formalities of the adversarial trial system. It is

described as informal, confidential, expeditious, effective, mutual participatory,cost and emotion

effective, promoter of peace and social harmony by removal of enmities and contributor to a

breakthrough in prevailing crisis of backlogging of cases. The Alternative disputes resolution

schemes are not a new phenomenon in our society but never widely used for formal civil

process. What is new is the extensive promotion and proliferation of ADR models and its

increased uses. The traditional shalish system was practised in the community level for the

settlement of disputes during Muslim period in this sub continent and the Panchayat model was

introduced in 1870 during the British period to resolve minor disputes within the local area and

are practiced all over Bangladesh till now and the NGOs assisted mediation especially in family

related matters, is a popular method of dispute resolution to the marginalized people of the

country due to their enthusiastic approach to the settlement. Though the traditional shalish has a

potential utilities, considerable advantages of the parties and effectiveness, it is now increasingly

losing credibility due to imposing the arbitrary decision on the reluctant disputants by the

powerful personnel of the village. But court annexed ADR schemes are the very recent
development in Bangladesh since 2000 and achieved a tremendous success to settle the disputes

in alternative way with the intervention of the court. It has created a great expectations and hopes

to the litigant public because when a dispute is settled expeditiously with the saving of cost and

time of the parties in an amicable way under the supervision of the court it is likely to ensure

integrity, impartiality and authenticity of the mechanisms. The incorporation of compulsory

ADR mechanism in Family Court has effectively opened the multidoor house of delivering

justice to the people. The very recent development of ADR in civil suits both at trial and

appellate stages and in commercial disputes reflect a shift from traditional litigation to ADR for

enhancing access to justice. These newly inserted provisions of ADR in different legislations of

Bangladesh have created a window of opportunity of access to justice for all especially for the

poor or disadvantaged groups of people who cannot go to the court due to their financial

constraint or if they go to the court, they cannot equally move against the strong opponent by

engaging a powerful lawyer for their financial limitation. Almost invariably, as found from this

article that ADR has a very significant role towards the enhancement of access to justice

avoiding all kinds of procedural and other complexities. ADR for the promotion of access to

justice by ensuring consensual settlement, actual participation of the parties, reducing cost and

saving the time and energy of the parties. Realizing the great success of ADR, almost all

countries of the world have inserted the provisions of ADR in their civil and criminal justice

system. In Bangladesh after the insertion of ADR in the Family Court, the Civil Court and Artha

Rin Adalat it has acquired a great success in this field. But for getting satisfactory success of

ADR it requires a motivation of the concerned judges, training program of the judges, lawyers

and mediators, should take awareness building program for the general people, needs adequate

institutional and policy support, to take appropriate legal reform and in particular the judges
should take an activist stand to fully utilize the court annexed ADR in Bangladesh in compare to

the regular courts keeps efficacious and effective role for the promotion of access to justice by

ensuring consensual settlement, actual participation of the parties, reducing cost and saving the

time and energy of the parties. Realizing the great success of ADR, almost all countries of the

world have inserted the provisions of ADR in their civil and criminal justice system. In

Bangladesh after the insertion of ADR in the Family Court, the Civil Court and Artha Rin Adalat

it has acquired a great success in this field. But for getting satisfactory success of ADR it

requires a motivation of the concerned judges, training program of the judges, lawyers and

mediators, should take awareness building program for the general people, needs adequate

institutional and policy support, to take

appropriate legal reform and in particular the judges should take an activist stand to fully utilize

the court annexed ADR in Bangladesh.

Reference

1. The Muslim Family Law Ordinance 1961 (Ordinance No. 8 of 1961), section 7

2. Haq Dr. Naima, Divorce Conciliation: Without the intervention of the Court and built-in

Conciliation in Family Court Proceedings, The Dhaka University Studies, Part-F, Vol. xii (i):

June 2001, p-8

3. 21 DLR (1969) 733

4. Supra-46, section-8

5. Supra-46, section-6
6. Ibid, section 9

7. The Conciliation of Disputes (Municipal Area) Board Act, 2004 (Act No. 12 of 2004) sec, 7

8. Ibid, sec 13

9. Ibid, sec, 14

10. The Arbitration Act, 2001(Act No.1 of 2001) Section 3

11. Ibid, section 39

12. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(as amended in 2003 by Act 4 of 2003) sec, 89B

13. Section 345 of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898

14. Source: Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.

15. The Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh (adopted 4th November 1972,

entered into force 16 December 1972) art. 27, 28 and 31

16. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A

(!!!) UDHR art 2

17. The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (adopted 26 june1981, entered into force

October 1986) art 3

18. ALAM, M. SHAH. (2001) „„Alternative Dispute Resolution by early judicial intervention:

A possible way out of delay and backlog in our judiciary. Manual for clinical legal education, p-

54

19. NASER, MOSTAFA MAHMUD,(2006) The Role of clinical legal education in increasing

access to justice: The context of Bangladesh , commonwealth legal education conference, p-54